4 ms·

I think it is okay to think somewhat in groups, that is, when it comes to examining some of the psychology behind warfare. Ultimately, a lot of that side of hum

I think it is okay to think somewhat in groups, that is, when it comes to examining some of the psychology behind warfare. Ultimately, a lot of that side of human warfare has a lot to do IMHO with human's inherit tribalistic nature. The part about getting people to not care about the people who die is, I think, very important as far as understanding how warfare can happen on the scale it does. Most wars are characterized by strong propaganda denigrating the opposing side in negative stereotypical terms. In many cases, I think that the leaders who push for war actually share similar beliefs as a nationalism-driven populace -- it's more than mere exploitative. Such explains why how, say, conflict over scarce resources can turn into something like violent conflict, which often (ironically) has a negative impact on the scarce resources itself. Nationalism (and some things which are tangentially related like imperialism) was by many historical accounts one of the major forces that led to WWI. (As well as many other wars, I might add.)

nickik 9y ago
> inherit tribalistic nature I don't think its as simple as inherent in tribal nature. Leaders are selected and they need to consider the opinion of the electorate (this concept applies to non-democratic states as well). In Political Science this is called electorate theory. > I think that the leaders who push for war actually share similar beliefs as a nationalism-driven populace -- it's more than mere exploitative Agree. > Nationalism (and some things which are tangentially related like imperialism) was by many historical accounts one of the major forces that led to WWI. (As well as many other wars, I might add.) Nationalism I would agree but in the end the choice was with some leaders, and many of those were not really nationalist but rather classical conservatives. Your point about resources is correct, they wanted to control those resources, not relay on markets and cooperation. After that the Nazis doubled down on those terrible zero sum ideas.

nickik 9y ago

> inherit tribalistic nature I don't think its as simple as inherent in tribal nature. Leaders are selected and they need to consider the opinion of the electorate (this concept applies to non-democratic states as well). In Political Science this is called electorate theory. > I think that the leaders who push for war actually share similar beliefs as a nationalism-driven populace -- it's more than mere exploitative Agree. > Nationalism (and some things which are tangentially related like imperialism) was by many historical accounts one of the major forces that led to WWI. (As well as many other wars, I might add.) Nationalism I would agree but in the end the choice was with some leaders, and many of those were not really nationalist but rather classical conservatives. Your point about resources is correct, they wanted to control those resources, not relay on markets and cooperation. After that the Nazis doubled down on those terrible zero sum ideas.